It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by viperdave
It really upsets me, how people keep saying, "Gun control means hitting your target." They seem to think that shooting guns makes you a real man. You know what makes you a real man? Solving conflicts using your brain, being there for your family, and not f***ing up the world.
reply to post by Sek82
These sort of threads are useful because it can encourage people to go and research the law for themselves in order to come to a more informed decision about who is in the right or wrong. Please be encouraged.
But I'm sure you will just "talk" the home invasion robbers into leaveing your house
Originally posted by Sek82
Okay Ben I like your threads but this one... I'm not taking the bait. So they are selling Airsoft guns, no big deal once that is known. But they could very well be real M4s from a distance, can they not? They got a call from some other concerned citizen and are just responding to it.
So residents are holding a Garage Sale, and when a cop steps up to check out the wares, the "Private Property" card gets pulled and I'm supposed to side with the idiots selling this stuff?
This can be compared to that guy who was questioned by police while carrying an arsenal of weapons, you are right. They are trolling for police response just to put it on YouTube while crying about their rights being infringed upon.
Originally posted by flashtrum
Yes you are supposed to side with the idiots. They need a WARRANT or probable cause.
Originally posted by flashtrum
They could have asked, from the SIDEWALK, if it was OK for them to enter the property. Just because this took place on grass and not within four concrete walls doesn't make what this cop did any less offensive. So by your argument, someone could say I was shooting off guns in my house or some other outrageous claim and the cops could simply kick down my door because "someone made a phone call?"
Originally posted by flashtrum
Let's not have training police officers then - let's just hire some goons to enforce whatever laws they see fit. That's what the first "officer" acted like anyway.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by flashtrum
Yes you are supposed to side with the idiots. They need a WARRANT or probable cause.
No really they dont.
Originally posted by flashtrum
They could have asked, from the SIDEWALK, if it was OK for them to enter the property. Just because this took place on grass and not within four concrete walls doesn't make what this cop did any less offensive. So by your argument, someone could say I was shooting off guns in my house or some other outrageous claim and the cops could simply kick down my door because "someone made a phone call?"
There is nothing to ask.. It was a valid call for service and the guns were out in plain sight. Depending on where this took place (apartment complex vs. some other property - in the video its discussed) plays a factor as well. If it occured at an apartment complex the parking lot is private property that is open to the public, meaning only the property owners, not renters, can tell people to leave.
Again though, a moot point since the guns were in plain sight. Its one of the exceptions to the 4th amendment. Its also a potential violation of California gun laws as a person must have a certificate to purchase a gun and only licensed dealers can sell guns. There is a 10 mandatory waiting period and any gun sold must have paperwork completed and submitted by the selling entity. If you check CA law you will find that restricted buisinesses (businesses who sell marijuana, alcohol, weapons, etc) have built in compliance checks, meaning the business can be checked at any time by the authorities to ensure compliance of the law.
The fact the guns in this case were airsoft is irrelevent until its confirmed. Prior to that they are treated as real and the officers are covered under good faith exceptions.
Originally posted by flashtrum
Let's not have training police officers then - let's just hire some goons to enforce whatever laws they see fit. That's what the first "officer" acted like anyway.
Yeah much better to have obnoxious ignorant civilians who dont know the law, who dont know their rights,who don't know how their rights work, let alone how a police investigation works.
I am all for training of the police beyond the academy level however the law is everyones responsibility. Knowing what your rights are and how they work is everyones responsibility. I am all for holding law enforcement and government accountible however people should know what the hell they are talking about before trying it.edit on 8-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by flashtrum
Yeah really they do. And you are assuming the guns were in plain site from the sidewalk. Seems like they were a bit far back to be viewed appropriately.
Originally posted by flashtrum
The law IS everyone's responsibility but in terms of ENFORCEMENT, it starts with local law enforcement.
Originally posted by flashtrum
The first cop was on private property without a warrant or probable cause. Sorry but attempting to make the "Swat-like" calls doesn't make it right and doesn't make it legal. You or Officer Friendly cannot simply come on my property without my consent or again w/o cause/warrant.
Originally posted by flashtrum
You can allow your liberties to continue to be stripped from you. I choose not to.
Originally posted by viperdave
reply to post by roadgravel
I totaly agree with you but we are kindof getting off topic
As I stated earlier in this thred, air soft rifles are very real looking!! They are heavy like a real firearm and from the street they do look real!! All these officers were trying to do was check to see if they were real
And they have every right to walk on the property and check
People, listen please, the police are not your enemy they deal with the worst humanity has to offer on a daily basis most police officers are very polite and they are just looking out for EVERYBODY'S safety , that's there job
Yes there are. bad cops , and they should be watched but what these people are doing in the video is bateing the cops to do something wrong!!! It's a set up!!
I just hope these people don't need the police when something realy bad happends!!
It's allways great to have a good friend that's also a cop!!
Be safe people
Originally posted by flashtrum
Originally posted by Sek82
Okay Ben I like your threads but this one... I'm not taking the bait. So they are selling Airsoft guns, no big deal once that is known. But they could very well be real M4s from a distance, can they not? They got a call from some other concerned citizen and are just responding to it.
So residents are holding a Garage Sale, and when a cop steps up to check out the wares, the "Private Property" card gets pulled and I'm supposed to side with the idiots selling this stuff?
This can be compared to that guy who was questioned by police while carrying an arsenal of weapons, you are right. They are trolling for police response just to put it on YouTube while crying about their rights being infringed upon.
Yes you are supposed to side with the idiots. They need a WARRANT or probable cause. They could have asked, from the SIDEWALK, if it was OK for them to enter the property. Just because this took place on grass and not within four concrete walls doesn't make what this cop did any less offensive. So by your argument, someone could say I was shooting off guns in my house or some other outrageous claim and the cops could simply kick down my door because "someone made a phone call?"
Let's not have training police officers then - let's just hire some goons to enforce whatever laws they see fit. That's what the first "officer" acted like anyway.
Originally posted by zoijar
I find it quite odd that people are supporting the actions of the cops.
If they really had evidence of real guns being sold at the sale they would have brought in a search warrant.
I do not think a phone call from a random person is legal for a search. usually a judge and evidence is needed to search a person or their stuff.
I do not understand how the sellers set up the cops? Where is the evidence supporting they where trapping the cops with the actions of a garage sale?
Originally posted by surfnow
I have posted a bunch of replies on here and I see that some others have as well. It all comes down to the plain view doctrine, which is the main reason the officer was able to conduct this search without a warrant. If anyone has any questions just message me
Originally posted by surfnow
I have posted a bunch of replies on here and I see that some others have as well. It all comes down to the plain view doctrine, which is the main reason the officer was able to conduct this search without a warrant. If anyone has any questions just message me
Originally posted by Masterjaden
Originally posted by surfnow
I have posted a bunch of replies on here and I see that some others have as well. It all comes down to the plain view doctrine, which is the main reason the officer was able to conduct this search without a warrant. If anyone has any questions just message me
SORRY you are ALL WRONG...
The supreme court has ruled that a firearm in plain view is NOT justification to assume that a crime has been committed.
They would have to witness a transaction at the LEAST to even be able to SUSPECT that a crime had been committed and even then they couldn't SUSPECT that a crime had been committed without it being an undercover officer purchasing the firearm and VERIFYING that the transaction was not conducted legally.
They have NO way of knowing that the person does not have a dealer's license or a manufacture and sale license, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA....
Without knowledge of a crime being committed, they CANNOT assume one has and they have NO AUTHORITY whatsoever to do ANYTHING...
As for the former cop, your ignorance just showcases how much we need to better train those we place with authority over us.
That fact that you claim you wouldn't have stood by and obeyed the law, is just a credit to how overreaching the whole cop idiom is....
Jadenedit on 9-7-2012 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Masterjaden
SORRY you are ALL WRONG...
Originally posted by Masterjaden
The supreme court has ruled that a firearm in plain view is NOT justification to assume that a crime has been committed.
Originally posted by Masterjaden
They would have to witness a transaction at the LEAST to even be able to SUSPECT that a crime had been committed and even then they couldn't SUSPECT that a crime had been committed without it being an undercover officer purchasing the firearm and VERIFYING that the transaction was not conducted legally.
Originally posted by Masterjaden
They have NO way of knowing that the person does not have a dealer's license or a manufacture and sale license, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA....
Originally posted by Masterjaden
Without knowledge of a crime being committed, they CANNOT assume one has and they have NO AUTHORITY whatsoever to do ANYTHING...
Originally posted by Masterjaden
As for the former cop, your ignorance just showcases how much we need to better train those we place with authority over us.
That fact that you claim you wouldn't have stood by and obeyed the law, is just a credit to how overreaching the whole cop idiom is....